Friday, July 18, 2014

Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Canadian federal government's immigration department, has announced major changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

The TFWP allows foreign workers to acquire Canadian work permits.

On Friday 20th June 2014, Canada's employment minister Jason Kenney and the immigration minister Chris Alexander announced the changes in a joint press conference. The two ministers said that their "reform" of the system would help to prevent abuse.

The main reforms are

No employer to be able to hire low-waged TFWP workers in areas where the unemployment rate is above 6%

Maximum duration of TFWP work permit to be reduced to less than the current four years. New maximum not yet known

Improvements to the Labour Market Opinion system to include better labour market information

An increase in the application fee from $275 to $1,000 per worker

The introduction of a cap on the percentage of employees at any one work site that can be sourced through the TFWP. A maximum percentage of 30% will be introduced immediately

The maximum percentage of workers under the TFWP will be reduced further in the next two years. It will fall to 20% on July 1st 2015 and 10% on 1st July 2016

An increase in the number of government inspectors and inspections made to ensure compliance with the terms of the program.

Increase in maximum fine for abuse of the program to $100,000

Increased funding to facilitate more criminal prosecutions of employers who abuse the system

The changes were brought in with immediate effect.

TFWP

The government has also said that it will publish the names of all employers who apply to employ TFWP workers and will publish the number of visa approvals for each quarter.

The TFWP allows Canadian employers to employ foreign workers where there is no Canadian willing and able to do the job. To be able to employ a TFWP worker, an employer must usually first gain a Labour Market Opinion (LMO) which will be taken as proof that this is the case.

The employer can then offer a position to a foreign worker. The foreign worker must then apply for a TFWP work permit, (submitting a copy of the LMO with his application. He must then apply for a Canadian temporary residence visa.

Bargaining power

Critics of the system have complained for some years that this system allows Canadian employers to employ foreign workers on low wages. They say that foreign workers employed under the TFWP cannot take another job when they are in Canada. They therefore have little bargaining power during pay negotiations.

This in turn, the critics say, means that Canadian workers are often not prepared to work for the low wages on offer in low-skilled jobs. They say that the system is open to abuse.

There have been several recent reports of abuse of the TFWP. Most recently, in April this year, several restaurants in western Canada, including several branches of MacDonald's in Victoria, British Columbia, were accused of employing foreign workers at the expense of Canadian workers.

TFWP 'has driven down wages'

The program is designed to prevent this from happening but Canadian unions complain that in reality, the program has been used to drive down wages and to employ foreign workers at lower wages.

The two ministers launched a phone line to allow people to report suspected abuses of the program on 6th April 2014. It has so far received over 1,000 complaints.

Mr Kenney said that he was 'disturbed' by reports of restaurants 'opening up new stores, new franchises, in areas where they tell us there are no local workers available'. He said that this was 'clearly an abuse' of the program.

Moratorium

In April, the Canadian government imposed a moratorium on the issuing of new TFWP work permits to businesses in the hospitality industry sector pending an investigation into abuses of the scheme.

That investigation has now been completed and the new rules are in place. The moratorium on the hospitality sector has therefore been ended.

But hospitality industry figures have spoken out against the new reforms. They claim that Canadians do not want to work in hospitality and warn of staff shortages ahead.

One, Garth Whyte, of industry lobby group Restaurants Canada told Canadian broadcaster CBC 'the rules have become so stringent that's it's going to be very difficult for our members to access it.

'Gross overreaction'

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the new rules were a 'gross overreaction to a handful of negative stories'. Dan Kelly, the president of the Federation said 'Unless the federal government is prepared to force unemployed Canadians to move to take jobs they don't want, these changes leave a huge gap for employers'.

According to the St Albert Leader website, the independent MP from Edmonton-St Albert, Brent Rathgeber said; 'I'm quite confident that we're going to see things like 24-hour drive-thrus close and reduced hours simply because the employers are not going to have the human resources to stay open'.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Following recent revelations about serious flaws in the Tier 4 (student) immigration system a former civil servant in the UK's Home Office has also questioned the reliability of the UK's immigration statistics.

On Tuesday 24th June, the UK's immigration minister, James Brokenshire, delivered a statement to the House of Commons about abuse of the system for testing the English of applicants for Tier 4 student visas.

Mr Brokenshire revealed that the system had been targeted by organised criminals. He said that there was evidence of widespread cheating at several test centres and said that at least 29,000 people had obtained passes in their English exams (one of the requirements for a Tier 4 visa) by cheating in their tests.

Tests passed fraudulently

He said that a further 19,000 test passes may have been obtained fraudulently and added that the government was checking results from other test centres to see if results from these give cause for concern.

Alasdair Palmer, a former civil servant whose former duties included writing speeches for the Home Secretary Theresa May, says that it is expected that the final number of fraudulently acquired visas is likely to be around 65,000.

He wrote, 'It is difficult to have any faith in the integrity of a system that has been cheated by at least 44,000 people'.

Doubt about government's immigration claims

Mr Palmer says that there must now be doubt about the government's claim to have reduced net immigration into the UK.

'If the English test has been so thoroughly compromised, what basis is there for thinking that any other regulation is effectively enforced?' he asks.

David Cameron, the UK's Prime Minister, promised, as leader of the opposition before the last election in 2010, to reduce net immigration (the number of migrants leaving the country subtracted from the number of migrants arriving in the country) to 'tens of thousands' each year before the next election in 2015.

Reforms

The UK government has taken various steps to bring about this change including

Closing the Tier 1 (General) visa stream for 'highly skilled migrants' (usually graduates) from around the world. The Home Secretary said that there was evidence that many of those in the UK with Tier 1 (General) visas were working in low-skilled jobs

Closing the Tier 1 (Post Study Work) visa stream which allowed foreign graduates of UK universities to work in the UK for two years after graduation

Placing a cap of 20,700 a year on the number of Tier 2 (General) skilled worker visas available each year.

Closing down over 700 'bogus further education colleges' by removing their Tier 4 sponsorship licences, thereby making it illegal for students from outside the EU to study there

Introducing a minimum earnings threshold for UK citizens wishing to bring their foreign spouses to live with them in the UK. UK spouses must now be earning a minimum of £18,600 before bringing non-EU spouses to live with them.

Immigration down since 2010

The government claims to have reduced net immigration considerably from the 2010 figure of around 250,000 a year to around 150,000 a year by September 2013. However, figures suggest that the total has since risen to about 210,000 annually.

However, Mr Palmer asks whether the public can now be sure about any statements the government makes about immigration statistics. 'If the English test has been so thoroughly compromised, what basis is there for thinking that any other regulation is effectively enforced?' he asks.

It is worth pointing out that the UK's immigration figures are, according to one House of Commons committee, 'little better than a best guess' in any event. Last year, the chairman of the Public Administration Committee, Bernard Jenkin said that the statistics 'could be out by tens of thousands'.

International Passenger Survey

This is because the Office of National Statistics calculates the number of people entering and leaving the country by reference using, in part, the International Passenger Survey. This is a voluntary survey of around 700,000 people each year at UK ports and airports.

They are asked to answer questions about where they intend to live and so forth. While this is a sizeable sample, this represents less than a third of one percent of the around 250m people per year that pass through UK airports.

Earlier this year, the ONS was forced to revise up its estimates of immigration between 2004 and 2014 by around 350,000 after it emerged that it had only carried out surveys at major airports and not at regional ones, where many people from the EU may have arrived in the UK.

Illegal immigration

Mr Palmer points out that the UK immigration figures do not take any account of illegal immigration.

Clearly, no one knows the numbers of illegal immigrants arriving in the country but Mr Palmer says that, a recent analysis of a sample of short term visa holders found that fewer than half of them left the country before their visas expired.

'It is probable that most go home eventually, and that the proportion that stays on permanently is less than 50 per cent. But no one knows the true figure. There isn't any comprehensive, reliable data' he said.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

A Democrat Senator in the New York State Legislature has proposed a radical plan to grant 'state citizenship to up to 2.5m illegal residents in the state.

Senator Gustavo Rivera who represents the Bronx, New York City, in the state Senate, proposed the new state law on 16th June. State citizenship (assuming such a thing is permitted under US law) would allow anyone who could prove that they had lived in the state for over three years to receive a range of civic benefits.

These would include the right to vote in state and local elections, the right to state assistance with college fees and access to Medicare (the US's emergency medical care system).

Range of civic benefits

It would also allow them a range of other civic benefits providing that they undertake to abide by state law and fulfil their civic duties, such as serving on juries.

Mr Rivera does not expect his bill to pass. The State Senate is controlled by the Republicans, who will definitely oppose it. However he sees the bill as one step in a process.

He said 'This is a bold idea and we don't expect anything to pass quickly. But this sets things in motion'. The New York Observer newspaper reports that Senator Rivera compared the fight for rights for illegal immigrants to other civic rights battles such as the battle for equal marriage rights for homosexual couples.

Unconstitutional

Even if it did pass, there is some question about whether such legislation is in keeping with US law. It would probably be challenged on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. If it were found to be so by the Supreme Court, it could be struck down.

The New York Observer says that Mr Rivera decided to introduce his bill after hearing of the defeat of, Eric Cantor, the leader of the Republican caucus in the Federal House of Representatives in a primary election in Virginia in early June.

Mr Rivera said that Mr Cantor's defeat 'made it clear we have to act quickly to protect the rights and privileges of all people living in this state'.

Tea Party challenge

Mr Cantor was defeated by Dave Brat, a challenger backed by the radical Tea Party movement in his primary election in Richmond Virginia. The victory sent shockwaves through the Washington establishment. It caused many commentators to claim that the prospects of Congress passing immigration reform legislation in Washington in the foreseeable future were dead.

Some commentators claimed that Mr Cantor had lost his seat because of his support for immigration reform. In fact this is not the case.

Mr Cantor spoke out against the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, a comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate in June 2013.

Brat v Cantor

It is true that Mr Brat claimed that Mr Cantor was a supporter of immigration reform (wrongly as it happens) and spoke out against reform himself.

But it is also true that Mr Cantor was extremely unpopular in his own district where he was seen as a self-interested Washington insider who took voters in his home town for granted. Polls show that this was the real reason for his defeat.

Nonetheless, the prevailing political wisdom among many commentators in Washington is that now, because Mr Cantor has lost his seat in Washington because of his perceived support for immigration reform, other Republicans will not now support any immigration reform legislation for fear of sharing Mr Cantor's fate.

No immigration reform this year

Therefore, although they were proven wrong about the reasons for Mr Cantor's defeat, it seems that Washington commentators are probably correct to say that Congress will not now pass any immigration reform bill this year.

It is for this reason that Mr Rivera has attempted to set the ball rolling at a state level.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

A Democrat Senator in the New York State Legislature has proposed a radical plan to grant 'state citizenship to up to 2.5m illegal residents in the state.

Senator Gustavo Rivera who represents the Bronx, New York City, in the state Senate, proposed the new state law on 16th June. State citizenship (assuming such a thing is permitted under US law) would allow anyone who could prove that they had lived in the state for over three years to receive a range of civic benefits.

These would include the right to vote in state and local elections, the right to state assistance with college fees and access to Medicare (the US's emergency medical care system).

Range of civic benefits

It would also allow them a range of other civic benefits providing that they undertake to abide by state law and fulfil their civic duties, such as serving on juries.

Mr Rivera does not expect his bill to pass. The State Senate is controlled by the Republicans, who will definitely oppose it. However he sees the bill as one step in a process.

He said 'This is a bold idea and we don't expect anything to pass quickly. But this sets things in motion'. The New York Observer newspaper reports that Senator Rivera compared the fight for rights for illegal immigrants to other civic rights battles such as the battle for equal marriage rights for homosexual couples.

Unconstitutional

Even if it did pass, there is some question about whether such legislation is in keeping with US law. It would probably be challenged on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. If it were found to be so by the Supreme Court, it could be struck down.

The New York Observer says that Mr Rivera decided to introduce his bill after hearing of the defeat of, Eric Cantor, the leader of the Republican caucus in the Federal House of Representatives in a primary election in Virginia in early June.

Mr Rivera said that Mr Cantor's defeat 'made it clear we have to act quickly to protect the rights and privileges of all people living in this state'.

Tea Party challenge

Mr Cantor was defeated by Dave Brat, a challenger backed by the radical Tea Party movement in his primary election in Richmond Virginia. The victory sent shockwaves through the Washington establishment. It caused many commentators to claim that the prospects of Congress passing immigration reform legislation in Washington in the foreseeable future were dead.

Some commentators claimed that Mr Cantor had lost his seat because of his support for immigration reform. In fact this is not the case.

Mr Cantor spoke out against the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, a comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate in June 2013.

Brat v Cantor

It is true that Mr Brat claimed that Mr Cantor was a supporter of immigration reform (wrongly as it happens) and spoke out against reform himself.

But it is also true that Mr Cantor was extremely unpopular in his own district where he was seen as a self-interested Washington insider who took voters in his home town for granted. Polls show that this was the real reason for his defeat.

Nonetheless, the prevailing political wisdom among many commentators in Washington is that now, because Mr Cantor has lost his seat in Washington because of his perceived support for immigration reform, other Republicans will not now support any immigration reform legislation for fear of sharing Mr Cantor's fate.

No immigration reform this year

Therefore, although they were proven wrong about the reasons for Mr Cantor's defeat, it seems that Washington commentators are probably correct to say that Congress will not now pass any immigration reform bill this year.

It is for this reason that Mr Rivera has attempted to set the ball rolling at a state level.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Emma Watson, who played Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films, is under investigation by UK immigration over allegations that she illegally employed a foreign housekeeper with no work visa at her London home.

Various UK news sources have claimed that Ms Watson first employed the woman when she was in the US in February 2013 while studying at Brown University, a prestigious 'Ivy League' university in Rhode Island.

The woman then travelled with Ms Watson to the UK on several occasions and, it is alleged, worked illegally. Press reports say that the woman worked in the UK for a total of three months between September 2013 and February this year. She is said to have travelled between the US and the UK with Ms Watson over that period.

Domestic Worker in a Private Household visa

It is claimed that, rather than obtaining a Domestic Workers in a Private Household visa, the woman applied for a tourist visa. She was, therefore, not allowed to work in the UK.

If press reports are accurate, the woman would not have been eligible for a Domestic Workers in a Private Household visa because she had only worked for Ms Watson for six months at the time that she first came to the UK.

To qualify for a Domestic Workers visa, domestic staff have to have worked for their employer for at least a year outside the UK.

£10,000 fine possible

Ms Watson now faces the prospect of paying a fine of up to £10,000 for employing an illegal worker in the UK.

Ms Watson is now 24. She was cast as Hermione Granger, the female lead, in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the first Harry Potter film, at the age of nine in 1999. She has been a well-known actress since the film was released in 2001 and broke box office records around the world.

The Harry Potter films made stars of Watson, and Daniel Radcliffe who played Harry Potter, and Rupert Grint who played Ron Weasley. It is said that J K Rowling herself chose Ms Watson for the role of Hermione. Some critics say she 'stole the show' in the first film.

Deathly Hallows

She starred in all eight Harry Potter films, the last of which, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, was released in 2011.

Since then, she has appeared in several other films including the recent biblical blockbuster Noah.

Friday, July 4, 2014

A detailed poll has found that the UK is deeply divided in its attitudes to immigration. The 2014 British Social Attitudes Survey has found that younger people, Londoners and those with a university education tend to think of immigration as positive whereas the elderly, those living outside London and those with little education tend to see it as negative.

The British Social Attitudes Survey is conducted on behalf of the government every year. Each year, a representative sample of British residents are questioned about their attitudes to a wide range of subjects. Among them is immigration.

The survey finds that there has been a significant increase in the numbers of people with negative attitudes to immigration. 77% of those surveyed, even some of those who approve of immigration and believe it to have been beneficial to the UK both culturally and economically, want to see immigration reduced from its current level.

Social divide

The survey's director, Alison Park, warned that there was an increasing social divide between the London-based, educated elite, who tend to support immigration, and those who are poorer, less well-educated and those who live in the regions.

In London, 54% of people have a positive or very positive view of immigration and only 22% have a negative view. In the rest of the country, however, 51% have a negative view and only 28% are positive.

Among graduates, 60% have a positive or very positive view of immigration and only 22% have a negative view whereas among those with no qualifications and those educated to GCSE level only (exams taken at 16) only 17% have a positive view and about 45% have a negative view.

Younger people more positive about immigration

The survey finds that, on the whole, younger people tend to have more positive attitudes towards immigration than do the elderly. Among those aged over 70, only 17% of those questioned, thought that immigration has had a positive impact on the UK economy whereas 53% said it had had a negative effect.

When asked about the cultural impact of immigration, only 21% of over 70s thought that it has had a positive cultural impact whereas 54% said it has had a negative impact.

The survey found that younger people were less negative about the economic and cultural effects of immigration. For example, 40% of those questioned who were between 30 and 39, said that immigration has had a positive economic impact against 43% who said it had been negative.

Cultural impact

44% of 30-39 year-olds said that they believe that immigration has had a positive cultural impact compared to 36% who believe that it has had a negative impact.

This divide seems to be caused by a perception among those who are less well-educated that immigrants from Eastern Europe are more likely to work in low-skilled jobs in agriculture, retail and catering driving down wages for unskilled work.

The survey warned that the 'liberal, political class' is in danger of losing touch with the populace, which they 'ignore at their peril'.

Record levels of immigration

The authors of the survey suggest that the increase in negative attitudes to immigration may have been caused by record levels of immigration over the last decade. The text accompanying the survey findings points out that, in the last ten years, 2.5m people have settled in the UK. Over 1m of these are from the former communist countries of eastern Europe.

The survey also showed that British people are not, on the whole, well informed about UK government immigration policy. For example, 56% of those surveyed were unaware that the UK has visa quotas for some visa categories.

In fact, in 2010, the UK introduced a cap of 20,700 on the number of Tier 2 (General) skilled worker visas that could be issued annually. However, this cap has never been reached.

Immigration rule changes

The UK has also

Closed the Tier 1 (General) visa route for highly skilled migrants. This visa scheme allowed immigrants to work for any employer or be self-employed; about 11,000 people a year came under this stream. There is a new visa the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) visa which allows up to 1,000 people of exceptional talent to gain UK visas. However, the eligibility criteria is so strict that fewer than 100 people annually get these visas

Closed the Tier 1 (Post Study Work) visa stream. This allowed all non-EU graduates of UK universities to stay in the UK for two years. If they found qualifying work during this time, they would then be able to apply for a Tier 2 work visa.

Introduced a minimum income for a UK citizen wishing to bring his/her spouse to live with him/her in the UK. Only those earning over £18,600 can now bring in their spouse.

Nearly a quarter of those surveyed said that they believed that the main reason that migrants come to the UK is to claim benefits (figures show that only a small minority in fact do so and that most work). Nearly two thirds believe that immigrants should not be eligible to receive social welfare benefits.

Disconnect between people and political class

The survey warns of a 'potential for disconnect and distrust between a more liberal political class which accepts immigration and an electorate among whom many find it intensely threatening'.

The survey warns 'in many areas of migration policy, constraints on current policy mean it is more liberal than even the most pro-immigration parts of the public would like, generating widespread public discontent which is hard to address.

'For example, EU rules make it very hard for the Government to restrict migrant numbers, or regulate migrant access to the welfare state, in accordance with the wishes of most of the public'.

Thursday, July 3, 2014

To many who have followed our posts on US immigration over the last couple of years, the US political system may resemble a game – a game played by two 'teams' – the Republicans and the Democrats.

A game a bit like football, or, as the Americans call it, soccer. Both are games with rules which the uninitiated cannot understand. They are games which stir mighty passions and games which can move their supporters to violence.

Given their similarities, perhaps it is not surprising that the two have become entwined. The football World Cup has become a political football in the world of US politics.

Democrats v Republicans

More specifically, it has become caught up in the US immigration debate. To fill you in with a little background, the facts are, briefly, these, the Democrats, broadly speaking, support US immigration reform. The Republicans, broadly speaking oppose it.

On Monday 16th June, the US soccer team played its opening game in the World Cup against Ghana. The US won the game 2-1.

Of course, all politicians love to associate themselves with popular events. And so Nancy Pelosi, a senior Democrat, came to tweet an image of the US soccer team to support the case for immigration reform.

Tweet!

On Tuesday 17th June, Ms Pelosi, the Democrat leader of the in the House of Representatives (the lower house of Congress), tweeted a picture of some of the current US team.

Seven of the 11 players on view had been whited out and below she had written 'Immigrants help drive America's success, even in the World Cup! Look at what #USMNT (The US Men's National Team) would be without them'.

The seven whited out men in the team were those who had at least one immigrant parent. The picture had been prepared by the GlobalPost website as part of an article headlined 'Here's what the World Cup teams would look like if immigrants weren't allowed to play'.

Impact of immigration on football

The GlobalPost piece examined the impact of immigration on football. It published photos of all the teams in the finals. Those with at least one immigrant parent were whited out. Ms Pelosi attached the picture of the US team to her tweet.

The tweet caused a furious reaction in the US from right-wing anti-immigration commentators. To be fair, there was some justification for their outrage; it turns out that all the players in the photo have been US citizens since birth.

Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin's site said that M Pelosi was 'selling lies like Girl Scout cookies' and added 'she can't even avoid lying about a soccer team'.

'They're all native-born Americans'

The IJReview, an online news site, said 'Nancy Pelosi and various other Democrats tweeted an image on Tuesday celebrating the number of "immigrants " on the U.S. World Cup soccer team. There's only one problem: None of it is true; they're all native-born Americans'.

Really? Is that true? Well, yes and no. It is true that all of them have been US citizens since birth but that is only because of US immigration law which says that anyone born in the US is eligible for US citizenship. So are most people who are born anywhere in the world if they have one US parent.

Despite the fact that all of them are US citizens, many of them have dual nationality, some have never lived in the US. Some of them have even played football, sorry soccer, for other countries. So are they all native born Americans? I don't think so.

Team stats

Player

Position

Biography

Tim Howard

Goalkeeper

Born to a US father and a Hungarian mother in the US. He has played in England since 2003

Johnny Brookes

Defender

Born to US military father and German mother in Berlin. Parents separated. Has lived in Germany most of his life with his mother. Has dual nationality and a German accent

Geoff Cameron

Defender

Born in the US to US born parents. He plays in the UK

Timmy Chandler

Defender

Born to US military father and German mother in Germany. His parents separated when he was young. He has lived in Germany with his mother since and plays soccer in Germany. He has a German accent

Omar Gonzales

Defender

Born in Dallas, Texas to Mexican parents. Gonzales rose through the college soccer system and now plays for LA Galaxy

Fabian Johnson

Defender

Born to US military father and German mother in Munich, Germany. Has always lived and played football in Germany

Alejandro Bedoya

Midfield

Born to Colombian parents in New Jersey. Now plays football in France

Clint Dempsey

Midfield

Born into poverty in Texas

Mix Diskerud

Midfield

Born in Oslo, Norway, the son of a Norwegian father and an American mother. Has lived in Norway all his life, plays football in Sweden. Played for the Norwegian junior team

Julian Green

Midfield

Born in Florida to a German mother and US father. Moved to Germany when he was two. He has played for Germany under 16s and under 17s but for the US under 18s team

Jermaine Jones

Midfield

Born to US military father and German mother in Germany. Lived in US but returned to Germany with mother after divorce. He represented Germany at under 18s and full international level. Plays his football in Germany

Jozy Altidor

Forward

Born in New Jersey, the son of Haitian parents, he has played in Spain, England and Turkey

Aron Johansson

Forward

Born in Alabama, the son of Icelandic parents, he grew up in Iceland and now plays football in the Netherlands. Was called up for the Icelandic squad in 2012 but didn't play due to injury. Decided to play for the US in July 2013

Chris Wondolowski

Forward

Born in the US to US born parents, one of them a Native American. His paternal grandfather was born in Poland

Jurgen Klinsmann

Coach

A German citizen who played in the US in 2003, Klinsmann is a legend of German football who won the World Cup in 1990 with Germany and managed Germany in 2006. He is still a German citizen

So, while it may have been true that the pictured players had been US citizens since birth, it was hardly fair, you might think, to abuse Ms Pelosi for re-tweeting an image which was not misleading.

The people whited out are the products of immigration. Some of them, at least are definitely not 'native-born Americans'. They were born in Europe.

US football success down to immigration

In fact, the reason why the US has a team that has reached the World Cup Finals and the reason why people in the US are aware of it are both largely the result of immigration.

In the 1970s and 80s, while Europe and South America, much of Africa and parts of Asia were in love with 'beautiful game', the US was one of the few developed countries that was able to resist its charms.

In those days, in the US, 'football' meant American football. That's why they call proper football 'soccer'; because the word 'football' is already taken. The popular games among the white majority were American football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey.

White Americans thought soccer is a girls' game

But immigrant Americans brought their passion for soccer with them. While among white, middle class Americans, soccer was a game for girls, among immigrant communities, its popularity continues to grow. And as the size of the minority communities has grown, so has the popularity of 'soccer'.

Now the unthinkable has happened, the US team looks set to progress to the next round of the World Cup while the World Champions Spain and, of course, England, take the first plane home.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

A new study has found that ethnic minority immigration to the UK may have had a significant effect on the recent European elections.

Analysis of electoral data shows that about 66% of white Britons supported the right-of-centre Conservative Party or the anti-European Union UK Independence Party at the recent elections for seats in the European Parliament.

A recent poll conducted by the Conservative pollster has shown that there is a great resistance among visible ethnic minority voters to voting for the Conservative Party. Only 16% of black and Asian voters, according to the poll, vote for the Conservatives whereas about 66% are faithful supporters of the left-of-centre Labour Party.

London home to most ethnic minority voters

The research says that ethnic minority voting patterns help to explain the results in the European parliamentary elections of May 22nd and, in particular, the difference between voting patterns in

London, where most minority voters live and the rest of the country.

In the election, UKIP did well nationally taking 24 of the 73 available seats with 27.5% of the vote over all. But its national success was not matched in London where it took only one seat.

The Labour Party came second in the election overall with 25.4% of the vote but came first comfortably in London taking four out of the eight seats available.

Conservatives third

The Conservatives, who are currently governing the country in coalition with the centrist Liberal Democrats came third nationally with 23.9% of the vote but did better than UKIP in London.

Labour had been hoping to do well at the election. There is a UK general election in 2015 and the European elections provide an indication of voting intentions in that election. Labour had been hoping to make gains throughout England but failed to do so. Instead UKIP made significant gains.

But the only place where Labour did well was in London, the home to the majority of the UK's minority populations. It seems likely, therefore, that Labour's support among ethnic minority voters is more loyal than among white working class voters.

White working class leave Labour for UKIP

Some white working class voters are thought to have defected to UKIP and this is thought the likely explanation for UKIP's success and Labour's failure to capitalise on the unpopularity of the Conservatives, apart from in London.

The report from the data analytics firm Webber Phillips suggests that 'we should definitely count ethno-cultural identity as a critical determinant of voting behaviour'. The report suggests that it was the high numbers of ethnic minority voters in London that led to the good performance by Labour.

The report goes on to predict that it is likely, as ethnic minorities move out from London around the country, that they will alter the electoral arithmetic and hand Labour an advantage which the Conservatives might find hard to counter.

Labour must not chase 'white vote'

However, the report also says that Labour risks losing its support among ethnic minority voters if it introduces restrictive immigration policies in an attempt to win back white working class voters from UKIP.

The report says that the numbers of ethnic minority voters will rise greatly in coming years because 25% of children in UK schools are from ethnic minority backgrounds.

The report says that there are two possible scenarios as the ethnic minorities move outwards into the suburbs and become more prosperous. Either

They will continue to vote Labour and provide an electoral advantage to Labour or

They will become more prosperous and switch allegiance to the Conservatives.

Some evidence of growing ethnic support for Conservatives

The report says that analysis of voting trends makes it seem more likely that they will continue to vote Labour. However analysis of data from a poll conducted by YouGov suggests that there is some evidence that some ethnic minority voters are gravitating towards the Conservatives.

The percentage of ethnic minority supporters of the Conservatives is still low at 16% but it is considerably higher than it was in 2005 when only 10% admitted to supporting the Conservatives.

The authors of the report say that the Conservatives could take steps to encourage more ethnic voters to support them by adopting policies that would be attractive to ethnic minority voters such as increasing the level of immigration.

Cameron's 'tens of thousands' pledge

It is extremely unlikely that the Conservatives would do this, particularly under their current leader, David Cameron, who has pledged to reduce net immigration into the UK to below 100,000 annually by 2015. Mr Cameron made the 'tens of thousands' pledge in 2010 when he was leader of the opposition. The then level of immigration was around 250,000 annually. Since then, Mr Cameron's government has only managed to reduce the net level of immigration to about 210,000 per annum.

The Webber Phillips data analytics company is owned by Trevor Phillips, the former head of the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission and a black Briton and Professor Richard Webber, an academic at King's College London.